[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I would agree in respect of most of which these guys believe. It is astonishing. I am not surprised that many people believe in a conspiracy in the JFK case however. Unfortunately most people only get the sensationalist pro conspiracy fiction that dominates the mainstream popular bestseller lists and of course the movie Oliver Stone made.

Quite misleading, Patrick... The mainstream media and the educational system is quite firmly in the hands of Warren Commission apologists.
 

Patrick C Wrote:It is evident from the absence of one time regular expert contributors like Hank and SVA, together with a group of well informed, sensible adults like Paul, IGS and Craig (though they did not necessarily see things in the same way), that our gang of three here are either not taken seriously or just drive people away with their irritating and exasperating methods.

What's evident is that knowledgeable believers cannot stand toe to toe with knowledgeable critics. THAT is what this clearly shows. Even those who still post, such as you, absolutely REFUSE to address the actual evidence. 

Take a look, for example, at Mark Ulrik... rather consistently lying about the evidence in this case. Inventing non-existent citations, and lying about citations that do exist. Or your cowardice in this very forum about the "unassailable" McAdams tabulation that turned out not to be so "unassailable."

Most knowledgeable believers who know about this forum simply refuse post... they know how badly their arguments get chewed up and spit out by knowledgeable critics.
 

Patrick C Wrote:There are some reasonable arguments for conspiracy and there are some well reasoned works out there on the case that do not support the lone gunman theory - personally for me they fail to convince however.

You can't name even a SINGLE one. Nor will you. You're a coward. When it comes to supporting your assertions, you're just like most believers...

Patrick asserts that he has a very large library of JFK related books - yet he cannot name even ONE that is "well reasoned" and supports conspiracy.

Which, of course, simply goes to show that Patrick is a liar. For until he get specific, and name a title - he's making an assertion that he cannot support.

 

Patrick C Wrote:It is s shame in some respects that people like Ben Holmes give many of the well intentioned pro conspiracy supporters a bad name with his 7 shot, 5 shooter scenario with mobile film lab and metal detector team for all those missed bullets.....

Of course, Patrick is simply lying again...

It's amusing that believers cannot defend their faith with the truth. Patrick lies at the drop of a hat, and no wonder - the evidence simply doesn't support his faith.

I defy Patrick to produce cites to my words that support what he just claimed...

But he won't. Nor will he ever even try.

And it's certainly beyond his charactor to apologize for lying about what I've stated...

 

Patrick C Wrote:And those that are potentially at least - capable of reasoned debate - such as the prevaricator Mark Lane, simply cannot be trusted to paint a fair and reasonable picture, instead they resort largely to selective and manipulative presentation of the evidence in this case.

And yet, despite over 400 direct quotes from Mark Lane, you've been rather totally unable to respond and refute anything he's been quoted saying. Why is that, Patrick?

It's easy for believers to assert that Mark Lane is a liar - it's quite another to actually point to anything he stated in 'Rush to Judgment' - then provide the citation that proves he lied. Mark, for example, has been desperately trying for weeks now to prove what he's been unable to prove.

Patrick simply refuses to even try.

[Patrick C]

(08-29-2016, 03:35 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Patrick C Wrote:The usual mumbo jumbo from Holmes......misleading and untrue......


"You can't name even a SINGLE one. Nor will you. You're a coward. When it comes to supporting your assertions, you're just like most believers..."

Of course I can and have done so many times on Amazon. In fact I have reviewed some pro conspiracy works reasonably positively as recommended reading.

These include

Conspiracy by Anthony Summers
Reasonable Doubt by Henry Hurt
The Last Investigation by Gaeton Fonzi
Accesories After the Fact by Sylivia meagher

There are others of course which are well written accounts. However all IMO fail to convince ulimately.

"Patrick asserts that he has a very large library of JFK related books - yet he cannot name even ONE that is "well reasoned" and supports conspiracy."

There is no assertion about it Holmes, I do have very large library of JFK assassination books - probably one of the largest private collections world wide.

"Which, of course, simply goes to show that Patrick is a liar. For until he get specific, and name a title - he's making an assertion that he cannot support."

And again, what a load of old tripe, palpably wrong and provably so with this very post.

[Nick Principe]

Patrick C Wrote:In fact I have reviewed some pro conspiracy works reasonably positively as recommended reading....There are others of course which are well written accounts. However all IMO fail to convince ulimately.

Since you are a believer, then from your perspective all pro-conspiracy books would be wrong. If they are all wrong, how therefore can you recommend any of them? And why would an historian like you claim to be "recommend" non-fiction books which you "know" to be false?

Do you know how many believer apologists books I recommend? None. They're all garbage.

[Patrick C]

(08-30-2016, 11:37 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:  

Patrick C Wrote:"Since you are a believer, then from your perspective all pro-conspiracy books would be wrong. If they are all wrong, how therefore can you recommend any of them?"

What a silly statement.

Firstly it is obvious that if anyone wished to gain an appreciation of the assassination theories for conspiracy or lone gunman that they should read books that reflected both sides of the discussion. I would have thought that this would be blindingly obvious!

Secondly there are several hundred pro conspiracy books - so where to start.....? Well as someone who has read most of them, it might be worth taking a recommendation of some of the more respected works and authors. Bugliosi for example would recommend Anthony Summers as a well respected investigative journalist with BBC credentials. 

Rather than on the contrary picking up books from the likes of Orlando Martin which - in his case - is a pitiful and woefully misleading account of events in Dallas - no matter what you believe!

Thirdly, my conclusion that Oswald acted alone, is essentially my formulated opinion based on my own research and assimilation, it is not a definitive account of the assassination and nor should be taken as such.

It is clear Nick Princip that your appreciation of the investigation of historical events and for that matter even the application of basic scientific method to determine truth and or actuality, is rather limited.

Did you for example ever undertake a "compare and contrast" essay at school ......I wonder...?

One of the key aspects of my thesis on the assassination of JFK was an assessment of the literature available to the public and it's accuracy, reliability, neutrality and other aspects of the material as valuable sources for the reader - and this was done under the guidance of a couple (at least) of eminent historians.

I think that gives me some qualification to make a general recommendation against individual works on this case.

And, no, just because I believe that the ultimate conclusion is probably wrong, does not make the work poor.

"Conspiracy" for example by Anthony Summers addresses many of the key points of doubt as to whether Oswald acted alone and arms the conspiracy theorist with material to question whether or not he was the lone assassin. Some examples would be, could Oswald have made the shots in the time he had, could he have got to the Tippit scene in time to shoot Tippit, could one bullet have caused the non fatal wounds of JFK and JC...etc ?

Summers gives good reason to pause for thought, however on closer investigation IMO, authors such as Majerus, Ayton and Posner for example answer those question in the affirmative and challenge Summers belief.

Summers himself does not conclude that there was a conspiracy - he presents a case for conspiracy. In fact he is no longer of the belief that there is indeed a convincing case for a conspiracy and one of his advisors - Paul Hoch at Berkeley - is also no longer convinced there was a conspiracy and both I am sure would recommend reading for example Mel Ayton and Bugliosi to name but two, to any student of the assassination.

It is very obvious to me, based on your statement and question that your background is not one of academia....if it is, your statement belies your background.

Not only is your statement silly, it is quite astonishing.





 

[Nick Principe]

PATRICK: "Firstly it is obvious that if anyone wished to gain an appreciation of the assassination theories for conspiracy or lone gunman that they should read books that reflected both sides of the discussion. I would have thought that this would be blindingly obvious!”
 
What’s even more blindly obvious is your steadfast fanaticism that NO ONE except Oswald killed JFK means having an “appreciation” for an alternative theory makes no sense at all. You see, I know the Nazis lost WWII, so I have no “appreciation” for an alternative theory that Hitler continued to reign up into the 1950s.
 

PATRICK: "as someone who has read most of them, it might be worth taking a recommendation of some of the more respected works and authors." 

Why? You know who did it. Any author who says Oswald had help is not to be respected, since they are obviously so wrong. What makes any author who argues conspiracy any less of a fruitcake/nutjob/tripe-spewer/fill-in-the-blank? 
 

PATRICK: "Thirdly, my conclusion that Oswald acted alone, is essentially my formulated opinion based on my own research and assimilation, it is not a definitive account of the assassination and nor should be taken as such."
 
Yes, that’s what *we* have been saying for years. You know, those of us who take tea with Nessie in the flower garden? But to LNers, the WCR *is* the definitive account. In fact, according to Specter, it couldn’t have happened any other way (at least the SBT). Are you now admitting you are less of a fanatic believer than you previously let on? It’s not shameful to say so. You can join us for tea in the flower garden.
 

PATRICK: "And, no, just because I believe that the ultimate conclusion is probably wrong, does not make the work poor."

Oh, I agree there is a lot of great work out there....but then again, I’m not a LNer, so I have the freedom to be critical of what happened that day. You do not. You are forced to believe what you are told; that’s your handicap, not mine. Alternatively, Posner’s book is a piece of crap and always will be, Pulitzer finalist or not.
 

PATRICK: "It is very obvious to me, based on your statement and question that your background is not one of academia....if it is, your statement belies your background."
 
Not as obvious as the clear fact this statement is just an ad-hominem attack in disguise. Or not so disguised.